That Damn UFO Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-11-2014, 08:54 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(26-11-2014 10:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 10:37 PM)Free Wrote:  The eyewitnesses all claim it was vehicle. Almost identical descriptions from different vantage points. The tapes merely prove the event actually happened.

This report hits a 7 out of 10 on my credibility scale.

The tape is not evidence of anything other than people talking about something they think happened - it is not evidence of an event actually occurring.

Well then, using your standard of evidence should we go so much further as to allow all criminals who have been convicted based upon eyewitness testimonies to go free?

The tape itself supports the testimonies of the witnesses.

So yes, it IS evidence. It is no different if a video were to support the testimonies of witnesses to a crime. If the video shows the witnesses at the scene, it is excellent evidence.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2014, 09:11 AM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2014 09:23 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
Quote:First, an argument that nobody can prove that they aren't vehicles fails right up there with not being able to prove that god didn't do it. It places the conclusion squarely before the premises. "What else can they be?" Well, I don't know and neither does anybody else no matter how convinced they are that they do.

It's not a matter of whether or not no one can prove they were not vehicles. All the witnesses claim that it was a vehicle. How is this any different than if they all seen any other type of vehicle? If, for example, a helicopter hovered over an undiscovered Amazon village and those villagers had never seen one before, yet all described this aircraft the same way, would it not be a vehicle?

We live in a modern world, and at the Chicago O'Hare Airport you have 12 workers who are very experienced with aerial craft, and you don't think these 12 very experienced workers could tell whether or not the UFO was a vehicle?

Common sense rules here, let alone the evidence.

Quote:Second, there is no argument that many people have seen unidentified things and have speculated on what they could have been. Speculations may help identify areas of potential investigation but they aren't proof or evidence.

None of them are "speculating." They are all making positive claims. They know what they saw, and what they claim to have seen was a vehicle.

Quote:Third, we don't understand everything about the atmosphere and are still investigating things like ball lightning, red sprites, blue jets, earthquake lights, and other sightings. Some are better understood than others and we don't know what other surprises may be found so jumping to "must be a vehicle" seems, at best, premature.

Considering their testimonies, the experience of those workers around aerial craft, and the evidence on tape, the odds are excellent- not 100% conclusive- but excellent that what they seen was in fact a vehicle.

Quote:Fourth, leaping to an alien pilot doesn't seem any more likely than other wild guesses. Claiming that they must be a pilot from the future in a time ship seems hardly more disprovable than the claim that it must be a pilot from another world. Maybe they are how the angels appear to us as they travel from earth back to heaven....

Who's making that leap? Have I? Have they? Or are you?

Sure, an alien craft is possible and for the reasons I stated in previous posts. But nobody is conclusively saying it was an alien craft

Quote:Last, in every case so far where we have been able to determine what was seen the cause has been a natural phenomenon or a man-made object. We still have many unexplained cases (which is not surprising given the inability to reproduce them or study then with appropriate instruments) but that just means we have many unexplained cases. We do not have evidence supporting alien spacecraft.

In cases where aircraft have been identified, well of COURSE they would not be UFOs. What's the point of this statement?

But for reasons I have previously given, and I reiterate- when the ability of mankind to produce such incredible vehicles is eliminated, the only other option is a non human possibility. After all, if it is non-human, then what the fuck is it?

Give me another option. Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2014, 10:04 AM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 09:11 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:First, an argument that nobody can prove that they aren't vehicles fails right up there with not being able to prove that god didn't do it. It places the conclusion squarely before the premises. "What else can they be?" Well, I don't know and neither does anybody else no matter how convinced they are that they do.

It's not a matter of whether or not no one can prove they were not vehicles. All the witnesses claim that it was a vehicle.

No, the witnesses are claiming that they think what they saw was a vehicle. That doesn't make it one. It was also often performing actions that no vehicle they know of could perform which makes their categorization even more dubious.

Quote: How is this any different than if they all seen any other type of vehicle? If, for example, a helicopter hovered over an undiscovered Amazon village and those villagers had never seen one before, yet all described this aircraft the same way, would it not be a vehicle?

The villagers wouldn't know it was a vehicle. We might recognize it from the descriptions and a hypothetical alien might be able to say we saw a standard model XJ7 landing vehicle based on our descriptions but we don't know what was seen.

Quote:We live in a modern world, and at the Chicago O'Hare Airport you have 12 workers who are very experienced with aerial craft, and you don't think these 12 very experienced workers could tell whether or not the UFO was a vehicle?

No, I don't. I think they saw something and assumed it was a vehicle because that is their experience. Ancient peoples saw things and assumed they were birds or angels or demons or gods because that's all they knew.

Quote:Common sense rules here, let alone the evidence.

Common sense tells me that I can't pretend to know what I don't.

Quote:
Quote:Second, there is no argument that many people have seen unidentified things and have speculated on what they could have been. Speculations may help identify areas of potential investigation but they aren't proof or evidence.

None of them are "speculating." They are all making positive claims. They know what they saw, and what they claim to have seen was a vehicle.

No, they don't know what they saw. They know what it looked like to them.

Quote:
Quote:Third, we don't understand everything about the atmosphere and are still investigating things like ball lightning, red sprites, blue jets, earthquake lights, and other sightings. Some are better understood than others and we don't know what other surprises may be found so jumping to "must be a vehicle" seems, at best, premature.

Considering their testimonies, the experience of those workers around aerial craft, and the evidence on tape, the odds are excellent- not 100% conclusive- but excellent that what they seen was in fact a vehicle.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion except by wishful thinking.

Quote:
Quote:Fourth, leaping to an alien pilot doesn't seem any more likely than other wild guesses. Claiming that they must be a pilot from the future in a time ship seems hardly more disprovable than the claim that it must be a pilot from another world. Maybe they are how the angels appear to us as they travel from earth back to heaven....

Who's making that leap? Have I? Have they? Or are you?
Sure, an alien craft is possible and for the reasons I stated in previous posts. But nobody is conclusively saying it was an alien craft

When you identify it as a vehicle you are making a leap. If you assume it is likely to be an alien pilot you are making an even bigger leap. I am staying at "I don't know what it is".

Quote:
Quote:Last, in every case so far where we have been able to determine what was seen the cause has been a natural phenomenon or a man-made object. We still have many unexplained cases (which is not surprising given the inability to reproduce them or study then with appropriate instruments) but that just means we have many unexplained cases. We do not have evidence supporting alien spacecraft.

In cases where aircraft have been identified, well of COURSE they would not be UFOs. What's the point of this statement?

Just looking at prior probability that a UFO claim is either natural or man-made. If in every case where the available evidence has led to an answer it has never been anything else. That doesn't mean it will always be such, just that the odds tip heavily towards any given unexplained event would turn out to be either natural or man-made if sufficient evidence could be found.

Quote:But for reasons I have previously given, and I reiterate- when the ability of mankind to produce such incredible vehicles is eliminated, the only other option is a non human possibility. After all, if it is non-human, then what the fuck is it?

Which brings us back to "what else can it be?" and while you are dodging making an actual claim that it must be an alien craft you are effectively making that claim. You have not shown that the sightings are vehicles, let alone non-human in origin.

I frankly do not understand how you can deny claims for ghosts and yet be so willing to accept UFO claims.

Quote:Give me another option. Big Grin

I did forget to mention that for any object beyond a relatively short distance it is difficult to estimate the size. I've seen multiple supposed alien craft photos where there was no way to tell if it was something small nearby or something huge in the distance. Without multiple camera shots from different angles all you have is testimony which is unreliable at best, especially when dealing with something the person is not familiar with.

That doesn't apply to all cases, of course, but does mean that some must remain unclassified because the 'evidence' is too ambiguous.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
27-11-2014, 10:44 AM (This post was last modified: 27-11-2014 10:59 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
I just need to deal with one thing here to demonstrate something.

(27-11-2014 10:04 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(27-11-2014 09:11 AM)Free Wrote:  It's not a matter of whether or not no one can prove they were not vehicles. All the witnesses claim that it was a vehicle.

No, the witnesses are claiming that they think what they saw was a vehicle. That doesn't make it one. It was also often performing actions that no vehicle they know of could perform which makes their categorization even more dubious.

Okay, so let's apply some reasoning here.

They all claim that they seen a large disc hovering in the sky some 1600 feet up, that had lights, a distinct shape, and which they watched go straight up, blowing a hole in the clouds.

12 witnesses- highly experienced with aircraft- claim to have seen a metallic disc shaped object- an aircraft- with lights performing maneuvers in the sky, and somehow you believe that we should think that what 12 experienced people seen was NOT a vehicle?

If it was not a vehicle, then I should expect you to come up with another explanation for what they seen, and your explanation must meet the following descriptions:

According to all 12 witnesses:

1. It had a metallic disc shaped appearance.
2. It had flashing lights.
3. It was hovering approximately 1600 feet above the ground.
4. It quickly moved straight up, pushing the clouds aside into a perfect circle, and then disappeared in the upper atmosphere.


So, aside from it being a vehicle, please demonstrate to me what else it could be, and do so by including the 4 items in the description above. Also, provide good solid reasoning as to how these 12 witnesses could possibly identify the object as something other than a vehicle.

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  I just need to deal with one thing here to demonstrate something.

(27-11-2014 10:04 AM)unfogged Wrote:  No, the witnesses are claiming that they think what they saw was a vehicle. That doesn't make it one. It was also often performing actions that no vehicle they know of could perform which makes their categorization even more dubious.

Okay, so let's apply some reasoning here.

They all claim that they seen a large disc hovering in the sky some 1600 feet up, that had lights, a distinct shape, and which they watched go straight up, blowing a hole in the clouds.

12 witnesses- highly experienced with aircraft- claim to have seen a metallic disc shaped object- an aircraft- with lights performing maneuvers in the sky, and somehow you believe that we should think that what 12 experienced people seen was NOT a vehicle?

If it was not a vehicle, then I should expect you to come up with another explanation for what they seen, and your explanation must meet the following descriptions:

According to all 12 witnesses:

1. It had a metallic disc shaped appearance.
2. It had flashing lights.
3. It was hovering approximately 1600 feet above the ground.
4. It quickly moved straight up, pushing the clouds aside into a perfect circle, and then disappeared in the upper atmosphere.


So, aside from it being a vehicle, please demonstrate to me what else it could be, and do so by including the 4 items in the description above. Also, provide good solid reasoning as to how these 12 witnesses could possibly identify the object as something other than a vehicle.

Big Grin

The fact that your "witnesses" were discussing the event together makes them all less reliable. Groupthink and bias takes over, this has been rather well studied, so your tape goes further to discredit the account then provide evidence.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
27-11-2014, 12:05 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 12:03 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(27-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  I just need to deal with one thing here to demonstrate something.


Okay, so let's apply some reasoning here.

They all claim that they seen a large disc hovering in the sky some 1600 feet up, that had lights, a distinct shape, and which they watched go straight up, blowing a hole in the clouds.

12 witnesses- highly experienced with aircraft- claim to have seen a metallic disc shaped object- an aircraft- with lights performing maneuvers in the sky, and somehow you believe that we should think that what 12 experienced people seen was NOT a vehicle?

If it was not a vehicle, then I should expect you to come up with another explanation for what they seen, and your explanation must meet the following descriptions:

According to all 12 witnesses:

1. It had a metallic disc shaped appearance.
2. It had flashing lights.
3. It was hovering approximately 1600 feet above the ground.
4. It quickly moved straight up, pushing the clouds aside into a perfect circle, and then disappeared in the upper atmosphere.


So, aside from it being a vehicle, please demonstrate to me what else it could be, and do so by including the 4 items in the description above. Also, provide good solid reasoning as to how these 12 witnesses could possibly identify the object as something other than a vehicle.

Big Grin

The fact that your "witnesses" were discussing the event together makes them all less reliable. Groupthink and bias takes over, this has been rather well studied, so your tape goes further to discredit the account then provide evidence.

But they were not discussing the event together. In fact, some of the witnesses didn't even know each other.

They were interviewed and questioned individually immediately after.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 12:05 PM)Free Wrote:  
(27-11-2014 12:03 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  The fact that your "witnesses" were discussing the event together makes them all less reliable. Groupthink and bias takes over, this has been rather well studied, so your tape goes further to discredit the account then provide evidence.

But they were not discussing the event together. In fact, some of the witnesses didn't even know each other.

They were interviewed and questioned individually immediately after.

Let me put it like this, in the ferguson case that just wrapped up all the eyewitness testimony was found to be impossible by forensic evidence. Eyewitnesses are the lowest form of evidence and the easiest to corrupt the most prone to memory error and the most prone to adding events that did not happen. The more they talk about it the more likely they are to add things.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
27-11-2014, 12:21 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 12:08 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(27-11-2014 12:05 PM)Free Wrote:  But they were not discussing the event together. In fact, some of the witnesses didn't even know each other.

They were interviewed and questioned individually immediately after.

Let me put it like this, in the ferguson case that just wrapped up all the eyewitness testimony was found to be impossible by forensic evidence. Eyewitnesses are the lowest form of evidence and the easiest to corrupt the most prone to memory error and the most prone to adding events that did not happen. The more they talk about it the more likely they are to add things.

All the eyewitness testimony was found to be impossible?

No, not all.

Entirely different ball game with O'Hare.

1. It was daytime.
2. All witnesses were experienced with aircraft.
3. The object was seen from similar vantage points because of its location.
4. Consistency was found in the eyewitness' accounts.
5. No contradictions between the witnesses has been reported.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2014, 01:01 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  So, aside from it being a vehicle, please demonstrate to me what else it could be,

I do not know what they saw. They do not know what they saw. You do not know what they saw. I strongly suspect that their memories are less accurate than is being portrayed; that we know is common. I do find the claims interesting and I think they should be investigated but my not having an alternate explanation doesn't make alien spacecraft a reasonable assumption.

Quote:Also, provide good solid reasoning as to how these 12 witnesses could possibly identify the object as something other than a vehicle.

By being honest that what they saw was not any vehicle they were familiar with and that while some of the features they think they saw might resemble features on vehicles they don't know what it was.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
27-11-2014, 01:18 PM
RE: That Damn UFO Thing
(27-11-2014 01:01 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(27-11-2014 10:44 AM)Free Wrote:  So, aside from it being a vehicle, please demonstrate to me what else it could be,

I do not know what they saw. They do not know what they saw. You do not know what they saw. I strongly suspect that their memories are less accurate than is being portrayed; that we know is common. I do find the claims interesting and I think they should be investigated but my not having an alternate explanation doesn't make alien spacecraft a reasonable assumption.

To say that they don't know what they saw is a general statement open to interpretation. It is more accurate to say that what they saw could not be referenced as being any kind of vehicle known to them.

But they know what they saw. They gave descriptions of what they saw. They seen a metallic disc shaped object hovering over a hangar that shot a hole in the clouds as it accelerated upwards.

That is what they saw.

I knew you would be stuck to come up with an alternate explanation that didn't posit aliens for the simple reason that you could not come up with an alternate explanation that didn't posit aliens.

It's not your fault; it's the nature of the evidence. Nobody else could do any better either.

I do agree that it doesn't prove it was aliens, but in all fairness, since there is no other known explanation better then aliens then the alien position appears to be the most plausible.

Again, we do not need little green men at the dinner table to arrive at a reasonable and plausible hypothesis.

And I do not find it extraordinary at all. If aliens appeared on all TV stations the only thing I would say is, "Pizza anyone?"

It wouldn't surprise me in the least.



Quote:
Quote:Also, provide good solid reasoning as to how these 12 witnesses could possibly identify the object as something other than a vehicle.

By being honest that what they saw was not any vehicle they were familiar with and that while some of the features they think they saw might resemble features on vehicles they don't know what it was.

But they know what they saw, since they all described it. Again, what they saw could not be referenced as being any kind of vehicle known to them.

But all of them described a vehicle.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: